Talk:Aneirin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The last revision (as of 21:20, 26 June 2006) is not Neutral Point of View (and not wikified either). If there is a debate concerning the definition of the Northern/Cumbric Brythons/Welsh, this is not the place for it. Walgamanus 22:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As there is debate regarding these issues then surely it is legitimate to include such refferences within the article. I beleive it is the above author who represents a non Neutral Point of View as to omit even the possibility of dissent from his own view seems excessive and to omit my whole edit was unfair as it did not only deal with the issue he highlights. As I am new here I am willing to hear others views, but surely an encyclopedia explicitly deals with issues of definitions and categorisations. I do not beleive I, nor anyone else has a monopoly on the truth. However,I will replace my contribution until a more responsible edit occur. Elidir 02:53, 27 June 2006

We do include references within the article. This is the beauty of wikilinks. They're all in the first sentence. The Brython link takes you to a page which could perhaps do with some expansion, but which explains what Brython means in this context; the bard link surprises me in its relevance (I was expecting a page all about modern interpretations of the word) and mentions being employed to praise one's lord; the Cymric link is actually a redirect to Wales; and the Hen Ogledd page is about a term which is Welsh but which describes an area of northern England and southern Scotland. If people want to know more, they can read those pages. Unless it has a major impact on our understanding of Aneirin, I really don't think there is any need to spend half the article asserting a specific identity for him.

As to the content you added, we need some references from known authorities in the field. "Some consider"; "often"; tons of use of the passive voice; "is believed"; are, I am afraid, all on the list of examples to avoid on the weasel words page: "words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources". In line with WP:CITE (a very important policy), we need to say who these "some" are, how often the claim (whatever it is) is made, and who believes what.

Also, it really could be trimmed. Your changes pretty much double the size of the article. But as I understand it, your argument is that (a) Aneirin wrote in Old Welsh; (b) this makes him Welsh; (c) some people say it doesn't and he wasn't; (d) but they're wrong; (e) and this is cultural appropriation. That's only a couple of sentences. (I'd lose the claims of cultural appropriation, btw. Even with a reference.)

Living close to a Welsh university with a large Celtic studies section in its library, I will happily chase up references (I have plenty for (a) already). But I can't just go and look for "people who say Aneirin was some nationality other than Welsh". The search facility is not that good! With which authors/journals/fields would I start?

Sort of a crash course in Wikipedia policies, this: sorry about this. But I hope it helps explain why the revert.

Telsa (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How about looking for someone who says he was ? John Koch doesn't think he was Welsh. Kenneth H. Jackson didn't think he was Welsh. That's 1.5 reliable sources (Koch is controversial, Jackson is dead, so marked down appropriately) who think Aneirin lived in the north. If you check what Ifor Williams thought and David Dumville thinks you'll have a pretty good idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, Angus. Thanks for the response. What I'm getting at is that it's the mentions of modern nationality that's throwing me. The changes Elidir made (diff) seem in general to be asserting that a modern country or nation has recently laid claim to Aneirin. For example, this passage: "lauded and refferenced for over a thousand years until recent history when other nationalities have laid spurious claims of cultural ownership and even authorship- largely upon the constitution of contemporary national geoghraphic boundaries and inventive misuse of the idea of Britishness (and Brythoneg)as the basis for a retrospective claim of ownership."

I found this quite difficult to follow, and so may be misunderstanding it badly, but I am taking this to mean that a modern, extant nationality (or champion thereof..) associated with a country is saying "he's ours really, not Welsh at all" (as opposed to "he comes from a time which predates modern ideas of Wales", I mean) and that Elidir is trying to prove he is/was Welsh?

Thanks for the references. I am embarrassed to admit that I only know the name of one of them. I shall go and read some more!

Telsa (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. Speaking a language related to Welsh doesn't make a Welsh person. On the other hand, being born in a stable doesn't make someone a horse, nor does living in one. Nobody knows anything reliable about Aneirin, even his authorship of Y Gododdin is far from certain. And as to what it records, well that's very controversial. It certainly seems unlikely that he could have written all of it as parts have to be dated after the death of Dyfnwal Frych in around 633. The concept of authorship when it comes to oral poetry is, as the Homer article acknowledges, not a simple matter. The existing article is long enough, if anything it's too long, and lengthy digressions on nationality, ethnicity and languages seem quite unnecessary. In short, I also disagree with Elidir's additions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think there's anything I can add to what Telsa and Angus have already said. I have given the article a bit of a tidy though. Walgamanus 12:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In "A pocket guide - The literature of Wales, by Dafydd Johnston, Cardiff University of Wales Press 1994"

In the late sixth century an early from of Welsh was spoken in the western half of Britain from southern Scotland down to Cornwall.

… Only one of Taliesin’s surviving poems relates to the area known as Wales. The rest of his work and all that of Aneirin belongs to the Brythonic kingdoms of what is now northern England and southern Scotland… After the collapse of the kingdoms of Rheged and Gododdin in the seventh century and the subsequent political isolation of Wales, the tradition and stories of the North may have been presented in Strathclyde before being transmitted to Wales.

The author seems to forget mentioning Brittany.Shelley Konk 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)